I Fink It's Freeky And I Like It A Lot

I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this, but I think Die Antwoord are some of the most creative artists around these days. I generally don't listen to a lot of pop music (including hip-hop and dance music) but every now and then something comes up that I just can't get enough of (usually everyone else I know gets sick of). This happened with Psy's Gangnam Style (I know, I know - but I loved it!).

So I first heard Die Antwoord's crazy tunes when I saw the video for Rich Bitch, which was kind of a history lesson on Yolandi's life and how she became a success. It's pretty ridiculous and when I first heard them I didn't really like it. Then I saw the video for I Fink You Freeky and my perception of them was turned out. This video is nuts! It's all shot from the same perspective, creating a tableau mise-en-scene a la Wes Anderson.

What do you think of this crazy video? Do you think it's just stupid and worthless modern music (if you dare call it that)? Or do you think this is true art and Die Antwoord are brilliant composers of the hip-hop/dance world?

I Am A Ghost

Finally a horror movie I am really excited for! I Am A Ghost has a pseudo-70's feeling that I am totally looking forward for. In a time when mainstream horror is full of remakes and uninspiring concepts, I have often turned to the indie and foreign market for my horror fix (where I discovered such great films as Martyrs and Dead Girl).

It has the feel of Rosemary's Baby, The Shining, and even such art-house films like Fellini's Juliet of the Spirits. Even the design of the trailer has a vintage quality. I am a huge fan of 1970's horror cinema and of psychological/atmospheric horror. The trailer compares it to a combination of Kubrick, Bergman, and Hitchcock, all who have done amazing work being some of the most respected directors in film history. 

The concept is simple: a woman is alone in a house and talking to a disembodied voice who says she is a medium trying to help her move on because she is a ghost. the film proclaims to be an experiment in memory. What does a person remember about their death after they have died? I am curious to find out. The film seems scary, experimental, and beautiful. This is the horror film I have been waiting for!

It was officially released in October 2013 but I just heard of it recently. Check out the trailer below!

 

5 Movies That Scared Me When I Was Kid

Horror films were a big deal for me as a kid. I loved getting scared, having nightmares, hearing spooky tales. It was a great thrill. These films are all ones that profoundly scared me when I was a young boy, for one reason or another. They may not be great films, or even all that scary to me now, but I remember them vividly having an impact on me.

1 Jeepers Creepers

What scared me the most in Jeepers Creepers was the monster itself, the "Creeper". He drove a scary truck, wore a costume that hid any defining feature, and when you got underneath that he had leathery skin, cunning eyes and a mouthful of sharp teeth. He carried an array of grisly weapons to murder his victims, and even worse he would eat them. After eating his victims' bodies, he would regain a part of their flesh into his own and grow more powerful. It was eyes most of all that terrified me - those knowing, seeing eyes. As a young boy, it felt like he could see me.

2 Jaws

In Jaws, I felt a terror that was like being in the movie. The scene where a young boy is on a yellow flotation device and gets attacked, and all the beach patrons flee from the water, left me feeling sick. Then, even worse, the mother screaming his name looked almost exactly like my own mother, and she was crying, "Alex! Alex!," which is my little brother's name. It was horrific. This may have been my first view of of real gore as well, when the boys get attacked and you clearly see a human leg float down to the sea floor, trailing a path of bright blood.


3 Event Horizon

I don't remember much from my first time seeing Event Horizon, because I never got to see it all. As the terror built and I grew more scared, the film became almost to much for my childhood imagination. At one point my mom covered my eyes and I heard a family member say, "Oh my God, he's cutting his eyes out." My adolescent imagination was off to the races after that, and, horribly, my mom sent me to bed without knowing what happened next. Years later, when I watched the film in full, it was still a horrific sci-fi flick (and still really good, probably Paul W.S. Anderson's best work) but it did not have the same impact on me as it did back then.

4 Demon Knight

Another film about scary demons that terrified me as a boy. This time, Billy Zane is unleashing a pack of bloodthirsty demons on a group of innocent travelers. The demons are the main thing that terrified me. They shambled along the dark hallways, with glowing eyes, and dark oily skin, looking to eat people. Only the Blood of Christ could prevent them from entering doorways. The demon within Zane's character also tricked his victims into succumbing to death, by lying to them with false promises. This was a terrifying idea, and I had nightmares for a long long time. 

5 The 13th Warrior

This isn't really a horror film per se, but like Event Horizon, I never finished the entire movie until I was older, realizing it wasn't as scary as I once thought. Early on in the movie a group of Vikings find a family grotesquely murdered in a cabin in the woods. Their bodies were brutally torn apart. This was horrifying to my young eyes. Soon after, on a foggy night, the Wendol attack the group, and I distinctly remember one of the animal-carcass-wearing enemies grabbing the head of a Viking and twisting it off like a cork. The decapitated head is shown in gruesome closeup being carried around like a trophy.

Honorable Mentions:
Scream
The Ring
Surviving the Game
Poltergiest

Divergent

I went to see Divergent on the weekend. I read the original novel by Veronica Roth the week before, so I was familiar with the story and the dystopian world she created. I was very interested in seeing how the film captured Roth's vision of a degenerated Chicago split into five factions. Overall, I was quite pleased with the cinematic adaptation and it fleshed out the themes of the book very nicely.

The world of Divergent is split into five factions, each prioritizing different values: Abnegation - Selflessness, Amity - Kindness, Candor - Honesty, Erudite - Intellect, and Dauntless - Bravery. Each faction enforces these virtues upon its members, to the point of everyone wearing the same style of clothing, and segregating into separate areas of the city resulting in factions not interacting with each other, or at least in very limited and confrontational encounters. Obviously, in a future where peace is supposedly upheld, the society is actually under strain by the conformity it demands. This is where our lead character Tris comes in, whose aptitude test determines her to be Divergent - one who does not fit into any one faction. Her mind seems to encompass all the virtues (particularly bravery, selflessness, and intellect).

The idea of breaking out of conformity is a common theme throughout the film. It stretches through the corrupt society down to the main characters themselves, embracing the idea of being true to themselves. The Dauntless instructor, Four, has a strong sense of who he wants to be when he reveals to Tris that he has the tattoos of all the factions, quoting "I want to be brave, and selfless, intelligent, honest, and kind." He recognizes that these are all valuable ideals to strive for and he doesn't need a government to tell him what ones to embrace. A lot of the ides presented here feel similar to Thoreau's ideas in his essay Civil Disobedience. If everyone did what the factions told them to, there wouldn't be peace. The idea is to think for yourself. Don't blindly follow.

The film follows the story of the novel quite well, although the pacing is wildly off. The novel slowly unfolds, allowing the characters to reveal some bits of information about themselves which is lost in the fast pace of the film (something that is usually a main difference between cinema and literature anyways). The world of the Divergent is created beautifully, presenting a vibrant world within a desolate Chicago that still thrives. The five factions are easy to tell apart based on their diverse styles amidst the ruinous city. For those who are worried that this is just another teen fantasy film, I must stress again the themes of corruptible society and civil disobedience. It is empowering for young people, and the characters Tris and Four are strong people who overcome a lot of hardships. Their positions in Dauntless force them to face their fears through a simulation program, presenting another major theme - facing your fears. The scenes of Tris fighting off flocks of crows, or being locked in a glass water tank are dream-like and eerie. Perhaps the most creative sequence in the whole film is Tris's aptitude test. She is transcended into a dream-state via a simulation serum, where she is surrounded by mirrors and talks to her own reflection. The sequence is high-tech in its visual execution and was, for me, the most unique sci-fi aspect of the movie.

Rejected

I remember seeing this delightful little short film when I was in high school and thought it was absolutely bonkers! Such absurd sequences with a fruit declaring "I am a banana!" and a little cloud puff freaking out because his anus is bleeding had my teenage version of myself laughing hysterically at something my parents and teachers would undoubtedly find appalling.

It wasn't until later in my life that I discovered the film had been nominated for an Oscar (Best Animated Short - 2000). I was shocked....and delighted! It reignited my hopes for the Oscars (which have since dropped again to the point I no longer watch them at all), but even more importantly it opened me up to discovering more of Don Hertzfeldt's fine work. In fact, he may be my favorite animation film-maker (Hayao Miyazaki comes close). But let's talk about Rejected.

Watch Rejected here first!

Hertzfeldt's masterful short is clearly a satire on the nature of advertising. The narration describes the work of an animator (Don) who is hired to create commercial work for a number of companies. The eccentric work features absurd characters in surreal scenarios that are all too bizarre for any corporate portrayal and thus get rejected by all the employing firms. By the end of the film, the rejected cartoon world begins to implode due to the mental degradation of the animator's psyche, resulting in the amazing finale. This is where Hertzfeldt's style shines, using the paper itself as a layer to the world - characters go flying out of holes and rips in the paper, ripples in the sheet are like tidal waves, and one character knocks on the medium making cracks as if he is trying to escape. This is surreal comedy at perhaps its best. Given the excellent animation work, the thematic undertones of advertising absurdity, and the memorable and often disturbing jokes ("My spoon is too big!"), I can see why Rejected is award-worthy. Don't you?

Chasing Mavericks

This past weekend I watched the biopic Chasing Mavericks which tells the story of surfing legend Jay Moriarty. The film was co-directed between Curtis Hanson (who made the great L.A. Confidential) and Michael Apted (who directed the historical film Amazing Grace). The film follows the "rites of passage" story archetype, where a wet-behind-the-ears character (a young Jay) wants to surf the biggest waves, or mavericks, in Santa Cruz but must be trained by his wise mentor (played the rugged Gerard Butler). I really quite enjoy stories of this type, obviously because they are traditionally motivating and inspiring, but also because I find mentor characters in films to be interesting and entertaining.

One of the main themes throughout Chasing Mavericks is fear and overcoming it. Frosty, the wise mentoring surfer dude, tells Jay about the Four Pillars of Strength: Physical, Mental, Emotional, and Spiritual. The film tackles each of these very wisely, except for the last one - there is one scene where Frosty denies his belief in God and this is really the only point the film touches anywhere on spirituality. Without the film-makers becoming too preachy, the film still manages to inspire the viewer through the other three pillars, mostly through the lectures of Frosty and the trials of Jay. The physical trials are obvious, where surfing is shown to be a difficult sport, fighting against the power of the tides and the intense training the characters have to go through. The emotional trials are shown through the relationships between characters, especially with Jay's mother and the childhood friend he struggles to build a romantic connection with. In an unexpected turn, Frosty demands that Jay write him a series of essays on observation and the impact of fear, showing that these surfer dudes are more than just stereotypical beach bums and they can actually think intellectually. The film goes to show that athleticism can be more than just being good at something physical and that there is a mind aspect to this lifestyle as well.

The film's structure builds well, creating a cycle of trial and success through the many conflicts Jay has not only with his mentor, but with friendships, family, love, and the sea itself. The cinematography captures some beautiful images of the sea, both at it's calmest and it's roughest, allowing some interesting choices for the edit of the sequences. The crash of the waves and the calmness of the sea become a metaphor for the path through life: sometimes it is smooth sailing and you can clearly see your goal, but other times you have to fight just to stay on top and the chaos keeps you from keeping your bearings. The editing choices I briefly mentioned also utilize this contrast in the mood of the surf: after the sudden death of a character, the film cuts to a calm sea, brilliantly lit with the white light of the sun - seeming to comment that there is silence now and that a death has occurred without needing to come right out and telling the audience. Another brilliant moment of editing choice is when Jay finally connects with his romantic pursuit and after the girl tells him she loves him they lean forward and kiss in a tight two shot - which deliberately cuts to a crashing wave, the embodiment of Jay's passion. 

The film ends on a low note, however, jumping seven years into Jay's successful surfing career when he drowned in 2001.  This final scene seemed like an out of place footnote to me, being a stark jump from the victory of his maverick conquest. It was difficult to feel a connection to his death as it felt so unemotionally tagged in at the end, and it kind of breaks the pacing of the whole work. The film adds on an inspiring interview clip with the real Jay Moriarty, redeeming itself to expel his life motto: 

"It's about finding that one thing in life that sets you free, but you need to believe in yourself or none of this matters."

Wilz - Get Looney & Ghost

I've posted some stuff on music here, both music videos and live performances. As you may have noticed, I like a lot of weird music so sometimes I stray into the foreign markets (I particularly enjoy visual kei bands from Japan). I decided to share some local music this time. It's nice to see some quality hip-hop coming out of our own province.

Wilz is a hip-hop artist from Saint John, New Brunswick (my hometown) and I actually went to high school with the guy. Below I have selected two excellent music videos produced locally and directed by my talented friend Steve Doiron. I have worked on a number of film projects with Steve and he is an awesome film-maker.

Ghost

First up is Ghost. I love this track. One thing I hear from people about Wilz is that he is very similar to Eminem. I definitely agree with this, but I think a lot of people end up saying this because he is a white rapper and Slim Shady is just one of the most famous. Sure he's white, but Wilz doesn't really compare to other famous white rappers (I wouldn't dare compare his sound to Vanilla Ice for example). The video is shot in downtown Saint John, featuring a drab setting that totally fits the mood of the song. Steve, the director, gets a cameo at the end getting out of his car (haha!). Wilz has a lot of charisma in the video, lyrics reflecting some deeply personal anguish, and the sung chorus has a raw power to it without over-exerting itself (the over-toned whispers adding a question of doubt to the character).

Get Looney

Get Looney is definitely a much more upbeat song. The video is very cool, particularly from a production stand-point, representing a post-apocalyptic world where people trade batteries for currency. For having a modest budget, as most productions in NB have, Steve Doiron sure knows how to make something from very little. There's a few local talents recognizable in the video such as Peter Doyle who made the Saint John-based film, Hometown. I'm in the video too towards the beginning (I get choked out in the fight). The beat is fun and Wilz spits his ryhmes with frantic pacing. Another bonus: the video shows off his break-dancing skills.

Liberal Arts

I watched the film Liberal Arts recently, the second feature directed by Josh Radnor (famous for playing Ted Mosby in How I Met Your Mother). I really enjoyed the film and its musings on life and experience. Radnor played the lead character in the film, a 35-year old who has a romantic relationship with a 19-year old college student as he visits his old campus. The film is extremely romantic towards literature and music and art in general, and I get a sense that Radnor himself holds a love for this material, almost to the point of pompousness. This isn't all that surprising to me as his character in HIMYM is frequently pretentious in his interests, quoting Joyce's Ulysses or reciting Dante's Divine Comedy in Italian. 

Liberal Arts turns away from the hilarity of Ted Mosby's prentiousness however and shows it more seriously. There is a great scene where the character Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen) calls him out on being a snob when he criticizes the Twlight novels for being awful literature that is the root cause of all the world's problems. This opens his eyes to how snobby he really is being and it changes him. The film does get a little high and mighty at times, and I feel like Radnor can be a bit of an artistic pomp but he does so with likable charisma. The film has many great characters, but my favorite is the stoner-Hippie performance from Zac Efron who professes that "everything is okay". Radnor's character learns a lot from him, and I think reaches a main theme in the film, that life happens and we can worry about it, or we can learn to love and enjoy the ride.

Below is a wonderful scene from the film where Josh Radnor is introduced to classical music by his romantic interest. His feelings of being lost in the music felt very relatable to me, as I have often indulged in the escapism of music while walking in the city. The language reflects the pompousness of Radnor's writing but also fits in with the themes and the characters. I have to admit that I really enjoyed this film and am starting to wonder if I am as pretentious as the lead character in it.

Are We Not Men? We are DEVO!

I can't believe I didn't get into Devo before! A colleague of mine just showed me a few live performances, and then went on to describe his initiation into their bizarre catalogue. He first saw them perform Jocko Homo live on SNL in the 70's, which opened with the intro of this crazy music video. Their concept of the devolution of the human species is reflected in the low-budget production of the video, the wacky and idiosyncratic nature of the New Wave guitar riffs, and within the absurdist lyrics. The costuming choices of the band members, prevalent through the rest of their material, also adds to their mythos. Even though this song was released in the 70's, its themes of a society going down the drain are still relevant today, and I must say it is rather entertaining in all its weird satire.

The Visuals of King Arthur - Dream or Reality?

The first time I saw Jerry Bruckheimer's production of King Arthur, I felt the visuals were odd, featuring colors that were too saturated and weird lighting choices. However, since watching it several more times since it's release in 2004, I feel that these aspects set it apart from other historical epics due to the mythical aspects of Arthurian legend. I began to sense a detachment from reality in the visual aspect of the film. I am a big fan of surrealist cinema, and feel that all movies have a dream-like quality, but due to the nature of the story, I feel it is different with King Arthur.

Firstly, the film uses a lot of deep shadows to accentuate the high contrast look. A technique of realism, this creates a dark, foreboding atmosphere to the film, and also makes it feel like a painting, particularly through the Italian technique called chiaroscuro. 

   

The Crucifixion of St. Peter by Caravaggio - 1600

Self-Portrait by Rembrandt - 1629

This examples show a strong side-lit approach, but chiaroscuro is basically the technique of using the contrast between light and dark to boldly affect the whole composition. The lighting here feels natural, but Bishop Germanus is half-enshrouded in shadow, demonstrating that he is either hiding something or not entirely trust-worthy.

Example of chiaroscuro in King Arthur

Another reference to painting, the use of strong bright colors in the landscape makes an almost ethereal feeling to the setting of Medieval Britain. Although this is supposed to be a historical film, it is still largely based on legend, and the dream-like color palette creates that sense of fantasy. Here we see the country-side, a natural setting, and yet it feels almost artificial because of the high saturation, almost popping out of the frame.

The green of the grass looks highly saturated for reality.

Adding to the strong ethereal atmosphere of the landscapes, is the unique lighting dynamics that cinematographer Slawomir Idziak created in certain scenes. Occasionally, the color of the light does not reflect reality, further demonstrating the dream-like fantasy feel of the film. 

How dream-like does this feel?

This technique is very obvious in the flashback to Arthur pulling Excalibur out of the stone, which is one of the most memorable moments of the original legend. Does that green light feel realistic? Or more like fantasy?

 Idziak also uses symmetry throughout King Arthur, creating a sense of balance in the compositions. This reflects the themes of equality that Arthur is professing in the film. This is most strongly emphasized in the round table, which leaves no head of the table, creating all men equal. 

In contrast to that, there is also a strong use of unbalanced composition to create visual tension. The use of silhouettes and strong shadows again create a heavy weight of visual power in these shots. This is used quite extensively in the dynamics between characters, giving one character visual weight to one side of the frame, establishing power.

The use of negative space adds weight to Arthur's silhouette.

Overall, King Arthur claims to be historically accurate and based on truth, but the mystery around the Arthurian legends and the very fantastic elements to the visual design of the film, makes it all feel very fairy-tale like.

Enchanted Princess

I recently watched Disney's Enchanted on Netflix with my girlfriend. I didn't watched it back in 2007 when it gained attention for three Best Original Song nominations at the 80th Academy Awards. I had known the basic premise of the movie, following a Disney-trope princess transported out of her magical two-dimensional fairy-tale world into the very real New York City, and felt it would be an interesting film to watch after Disney's recent fairy-tale endeavor with Frozen. The much acclaimed adaption of the Snow Queen story was seen as a progressive move for the production company, creating two strong female leads that rejected the standard stereotype of most princesses in seeking the true love of a prince. 

Enchanted still followed the classic paradigm of an innocent woman seeking true love. It adheres to all the silly fairy tale tropes that have haunted lead female roles in Disney films. However, it presented its tale with wonder and joy that really made me laugh quite a bit. Amy Adams was wonderful as the princess Giselle, who goes around New York filled with awe at all the strange things she sees. A character out of place in a strange world is a common theme in these kind of movies, but Adams's performance brought it to new heights with her innocent questioning of why people are so unhappy. With most happy-go-lucky movies like this, I can't help but feel a certain cynicism at the optimism, which is why I like to watch darker films with tragic endings (see The Mist or Dancer in the Dark for some good ones). Of course, Giselle's awe and cute wonder at the world would be incredibly lackluster if there wasn't a complete opposite to create the conflict in the film. That's where Patrick Dempsey comes in, playing the realistic feet-on-the-ground single father who's life gets turned upside-down when he is too nice to let poor lost Giselle on her own.

Both characters learn something from each other and this where the film wins. There is a conflict and they gain something in the end. Patrick Dempsey learns to see the bright side, the beauty in the world, to open up about his true feelings, and to love again. Giselle learns about evil, the hardships of real life, that not all people are good and honest, and how to fight for herself and not for someone else. The beautiful thing about all this is how Giselle shows other people the pure beauty in just being alive and getting to share things with each other. This is why she is my favorite part of the film and why I think it received such a great response when it was released. Sure, it still represents the power of being in a hetero relationship, but it does it with a lot of heart.

King of the Monsters

The movies have been plagued by remakes since our grandparents were around. I hear a lot of complaints that Hollywood only does remakes these days, but really they've been doing it since day one. D.W. Griffith did it with Orphans of the Storm in 1921, which was a remake of Herbert Brenon's The Two Orphans (1915). I can't say I am against movies being remade as some of them are done really well. Look at John Carpenter's The Thing or Brian De Palma's Scarface. Very good examples. There have even been some good recent ones (I was a big fan of the recent Evil Dead re-visioning).

Now comes another remake of a classic. The last time North American audiences saw the Godzilla on screen, it left a sour taste in our mouths. Roland Emmerich's take on Godzilla in 1998 was not received well, and it is not surprising that we haven't seen any American takes on it since then. The Japanese have still been pumping out a few (including 2004's Godzilla: Final Wars which saw the original King of Monsters destroying Emmerich's American version in one deft tail whip - so much for Hollywood). Now it's 2014, and the people with the money have decided it's time for a new take on the monster movie that started it all. 

Toho's Gojira in 1954.

In the last decade we've had a few good punches of giant monster flicks and a few not-so-good flops. In 2005, we had Peter Jackson's epic take on King Kong, which had it's moments but overall was unnecessarily long. 2006 brought us the Korean monster masterpiece, The Host, from director Bong Joon-Ho (one of the few monster films to spark the socio-political commentary since the original 1954 Gojira). We got a taste of vomit-inducing found footage monster destruction from J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeve via Cloverfield, which was an interesting experiment, but ultimately a failure (it enters a whole other genre here, and I may talk about found-footage films in the future). In 2010, we got what I think is maybe the best monster movie I've ever seen, Monsters. This indie flick was made for half a million dollars, and was the directorial debut of Gareth Edwards (who is leading the 2014 Godzilla remake for his sophomore feature). Monsters was a masterful mix of science fiction suspense, political thriller, and human drama, that created a wonderful monster horror ambiance by using Spielberg's Jaws technique of not fully revealing the beast until the final act. The budget was low, but Edwards knew how to work it, creating a beautiful film that could actually be taken seriously as a film. And last year, we received the bone-crunching action epic Pacific Rim from Guillermo Del Toro, a rock n' roll anime-inspired beat-em-up movie that my 10-year-old self would've put on a pillar titled favorite movie ever. It was a lot of fun, but lost a lot of credibility to its senseless dismissal of science and realistic characters. Overall, I still loved it for what it was.

Gareth Edwards's Monsters

Finally, we have the new Godzilla. The marketing people have teased us with hints at the film for a while now and we have finally been allowed to see a full trailer. So far, I think it looks amazing. Gareth Edwards was a great choice for director, as I can see his seriousness and attention to visual design that we found in Monsters. This new film obviously has given him a bigger budget to play with, and he is using it to his full potential. The shots of destruction look photo-realistic, and the ambiance plays a huge role in the feel of the film. The use of 2001: A Space Odyssey's score adds a wave of dread to what we are seeing. This doesn't give us much of an idea for what the actual score will be but it certainly sets a mood. The teaser trailer had a snippet of a J. Robert Oppenheimer speech on the horror of the nuclear bomb ("Now I have become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds"). This leads me to believe that they are still holding true to the original 1954 version's commentary on nuclear war and the futility of what we do to each other. Ken Watanabe's character has a quote in the trailer: "The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control and not the other way around."  This further points in the direction of a serious commentary on society today, especially with all the environmental issues going on. Based on the many shots in the trailer of human faces, I can see that Edwards wants to focus on the human drama side of things. With a cast including Bryan Cranston, you know this isn't going to be some B-movie performance. It seems like there will be some heavy emotions happening among the carnage and horror. Last but not least, we get a great shot of the King himself at the end of the trailer. It's a point of view shot from survivors in a bunker as the doors slowly close, with Godzilla roaring right at us. A great shot, it is very claustrophobic and gives the feeling that this film will follow suit with Monsters, and its inspiration, Jaws, with the monster slowly being revealed throughout the film, and not getting a full shot until the end. The design of the monster itself lends an homage to the original Godzilla design, but making it much more realistic and scary (that last shot is truly terrifying). This is a breath of fresh air compared to the agile but too skinny (and iguana-based) monster from 1998. The original monster wasn't too scary either (it was just a guy in a suit) but using that design and vamping it up, shows the film-makers are aware of the roots and still making it their own.

Poster for the 2014 Godzilla

I have to say that I am extremely excited for this film this summer. I grew up watching Godzilla movies. I saw a ton of them, and it established a love for monster movies in general. However none of the recent ones have fully satisfied me since that feeling the original Toho creatures gave me. The Host and Monsters were great films, beautiful works of art even, but they lacked the destruction and intensity I felt when I watched Godzilla fight Rodan as a child. I hope that Gareth Edwards's take on this epic can return me to that nostalgic love of destruction while keeping it a serious film that can teach us something about who we are and the world we live in.

Watch the Godzilla trailer below!